Diplomacy/Intimidate between PCs

[Silma]

Hi there playgrounders!!!
I was just thinking, from the 3 "conversational" skills, Bluff is the only one that has an anti-skill (Insight, or Sense Motive) and thus can be used between PCs. But what about Diplomacy or Intimidate? As far as I know, there hasn't yet been a dnd edition that included some sort of mechanic for using those skills on other party members.

While I understand that it is quite difficult to force your fellow players to take certain actions by convincing them or scaring them into it and to some extent I agree. But. Why is Bluff so different?

I mean what does it mean when a PC has a high Bluff? It means that he is good at lying. As a result, he is able to convince his fellow PCs to believe his version of a story. Being able to lie well is a basic skill someone could have, and it is no different than swinging a sword. It is a numerical expression of a specific trait that a PC has. But isn't persuasion also a basic skill as well? Why can't my PC "convince" other PCs that he is right? Why I can lie to them using a simple roll, but in order to convince them I have to do it only by talking?

People who are against Diplomacy and Intimidate being used between PCs usually support their opinion by saying that players should roleplay the argument instead. But this has many many drawbacks. Because in order to convince someone's PC that your PC is right, you as a player have to be convincing yourself. So that means that people who are generally more likable or convincing IRL are usually the ones who have it their way. I have seen it happen many times between my players. So what does that mean? It means that one aspect of the PC you created is partially lost because you cannot use it on teammates. Your 20 CHA Bard is a pushover because you as a player are not very good with words, but the other player who plays a brute with CHA as his dump-stat, gets his way because he is a more sociable and talkative person.

What are your thoughts on that?

[icefractal]

Maybe because being Diplomacy'd into doing stuff is no fun? It's a jerk move, the same way that casting Dominate Person on the other PCs is. Why is it banned and Dominate isn't? Maybe because it's a much more common situation, harder to resist (skills can get very divergent), and much more repeatable (you fail at Dominate once, you're probably getting a sword to the face).

Now sure, it's possible to do this in a non-jerk way. But the majority of times people want to do so, they're being a jerk, either intentionally or unintentionally. So just putting a stop sign on that and making the player get buy in from the intended target seems like a good move.

So why does Bluff get a pass? A combination of:
* It's less problematic; Bluff only determines what information you have, not what you do.
* It's more necessary; trying to roleplay out bluffing people is extremely difficult (both to do and to judge) when they were sitting right next to you and know the truth.

[Silma]

Maybe because being Diplomacy'd into doing stuff is no fun? It's a jerk move, the same way that casting Dominate Person on the other PCs is. Why is it banned and Dominate isn't? Maybe because it's a much more common situation, harder to resist (skills can get very divergent), and much more repeatable (you fail at Dominate once, you're probably getting a sword to the face).

Now sure, it's possible to do this in a non-jerk way. But the majority of times people want to do so, they're being a jerk, either intentionally or unintentionally. So just putting a stop sign on that and making the player get buy in from the intended target seems like a good move.

So why does Bluff get a pass? A combination of:
* It's less problematic; Bluff only determines what information you have, not what you do.
* It's more necessary; trying to roleplay out bluffing people is extremely difficult (both to do and to judge) when they were sitting right next to you and know the truth.

You're absolutely right that if such a mechanic were to exist it could be abused in an awful way. But what about the good ways in which it could be used? it would really help certain characters fulfill their roleplaying potential. Because now, some characters are being under-shadowed in inter-party conflicts because of the before-said reasons.

I mean, the ideal situation would certainly be to have experienced players (roleplaying-wise) who actually take the other PCs' stats, skills, and abilities into consideration when deciding what their character would think or do. But that is not always possible. What if there was a way to make this easier for new players, or players who depend more on rolls? Sometimes, people tend to have a certain difficulty accepting the views of a PC played by someone they like less than someone else. Favorites are often there when the party has to decide that they will do, even if the players themselves don't always realize it. As a result, the less favorite player's PC is being partially cast aside when it comes to party decisions.

[NikitaDarkstar]

Pretty sure you can counter Intimidate and Diplomacy with Will saves to resist? (I know there's some mechanic for it, just not an opposing skill as such.)

And honestly, rolling for resolutions to intra-party conflict is... possibly the least fun way to do it if you ask me. If rolls are going to be involved it's best to houserule that, but otherwise the PC's know each other (IC'ly) to well to just fall for things as easily as NPC's.

That said I do agree with you that with certain groups and players this is a problem, and there should at least be something in the DMG suggesting how to deal with it.

[Silma]

Pretty sure you can counter Intimidate and Diplomacy with Will saves to resist? (I know there's some mechanic for it, just not an opposing skill as such.)

And honestly, rolling for resolutions to intra-party conflict is... possibly the least fun way to do it if you ask me. If rolls are going to be involved it's best to houserule that, but otherwise the PC's know each other (IC'ly) to well to just fall for things as easily as NPC's.

That said I do agree with you that with certain groups and players this is a problem, and there should at least be something in the DMG suggesting how to deal with it.

I do agree that it is the least fun way to resolve things, and in an ideal gaming group I would never even think to use it. It's those problematic situations that led me to start thinking about this.

As for the mechanic, in the books (not sure which one) it says that a Will save, or the Will Defense in 3.5 and 4e respectively, is used to counter an Intimidate check, but it only applies to monsters.

[elpollo]

Hi there playgrounders!!!
I was just thinking, from the 3 "conversational" skills, Bluff is the only one that has an anti-skill (Insight, or Sense Motive) and thus can be used between PCs. But what about Diplomacy or Intimidate? As far as I know, there hasn't yet been a dnd edition that included some sort of mechanic for using those skills on other party members.

*snip*

What are your thoughts on that?

Whooh boy.

Here's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226668) a thread from a little while back that discussed a similar sort of thing.

I certainly wouldn't mind being in a game which did this sort of thing (I'd actually really like to see how it went, although I suspect that with any group I'd want to try this with there would be very little noticable difference), so long as I knew that it would be involved beforehand, but from experience I seem to be in the vast minority.

You would need to work out definitive rules for resisting such things, but with a fair DM and an open group I don't see this as being a problem - circumstance modifiers mean you aren't ever going to have to do something completely out of character (unless we're talking crazy optimisation of the skills, but this is probably not a system to use with those sorts of people). It's not like you're taking away the roleplaying aspect (well, you could, but that's not what I'm suggesting) - everything can still happen exactly the same as without the die roll, but key points in social conflicts can be resolved with a die roll rather than the DM deciding or one player having to back down (please note, I am not suggesting every sentance or point has to be rolled for, much like how in combat not every sword stroke has to be rolled). So far as I can see all this means is that characters who are supposed to be better at this sort of thing are better at this sort of thing.

But yeah, different people have very different expectations from things, so I have no doubt that most people would disagree.



I do agree that it is the least fun way to resolve things, and in an ideal gaming group I would never even think to use it. It's those problematic situations that led me to start thinking about this.

As for the mechanic, in the books (not sure which one) it says that a Will save, or the Will Defense in 3.5 and 4e respectively, is used to counter an Intimidate check, but it only applies to monsters.

I'd only want to use it with an ideal group, and I'm not sure why it would be less fun - I can see this creating some interesting roleplaying opportunities that otherwise might not crop up.

[prufock]

Intimidate is countered with an opposed roll: d20+HD+wis bonus+special modifiers vs fear (such as size, spells, bardic music, or class abilities).

Our group simply rules that "social skills" can't be used against PCs. We tend to play cooperatively rather than spy vs spy style though.

EDIT: I should amend this slightly. Bluff can still be used to feint in combat (denying dex to AC), to provide a distraction for hiding, or to deliver a secret message, and Intimidate can still be used to demoralize (-2 penalty to d20 rolls). We just can't use Diplomacy or Intimidate to force other PCs to change attitude and behaviour, and a successful bluff check is no guarantee that a PC will believe you.

[Siegel]

Check out the Duel of Wits in Burning Wheel/Empires for a better mechanical represantation then just a straight up skillroll.

[Person_Man]

My understanding is that you don't use Skills to determine the interaction between players. You use roleplaying.

To quote the Rules Compendium, pg 66:


Certain skills allow you persuade, fool, and otherwise influence others in the game world. Some of these skills can be used against player characters as well, but players decide what their characters do unless those characters are magically compelled to do otherwise.

So you can use Bluff to lie to another player, which he resists with Sense Motive. (Which is never a good idea, because even if the character doesn't know you're lying, the player knows you're lying, and will act differently because of it). But regardless of whether or not he believes your lie, he chooses what he wants to do unless he's magically compelled to do otherwise.

Intimidate and Diplomacy can only effect an NPC's attitudes.

[Particle_Man]

Maybe check out Iron Heroes for more on this kind of stuff via feats?

[Duke of URL]

I dunno... if players are roleplaying their characters being diplomatic or intimidating, letting them roll for how effective they're being makes sense. The players just need to understand that the result of the check should just be used as a guideline to altering how their characters perceive and react to things.

On the whole, though, using intimidate against other PCs is a bad idea, because after the initial intimidation wears off, resentment kicks in (as a reasonable interpretation of the intimidate rules), which is going to play havoc with party cohesion in the long run. It should be used sparingly.

Likewise, always trying to get your way through diplomacy is going to be boring for the other players (and it is a game, after all) if they always get outvoted due to your maxed-out skill check. Again, use it sparingly, and only in conjunction with Rich's fixes (or similar).

As for bluff... keeping secrets from fellow players/characters is fair game in many types of play, so go for it. The DM should be handling sense motive checks secretly so that there's no "tip-off" to other players that a bluff is occurring. This works best in a gaming environment where rampant note-passing is routine or in a PbP setting where private messaging can be used.

[icefractal]

I mean, the ideal situation would certainly be to have experienced players (roleplaying-wise) who actually take the other PCs' stats, skills, and abilities into consideration when deciding what their character would think or do. But that is not always possible. What if there was a way to make this easier for new players, or players who depend more on rolls? Sometimes, people tend to have a certain difficulty accepting the views of a PC played by someone they like less than someone else. Favorites are often there when the party has to decide that they will do, even if the players themselves don't always realize it. As a result, the less favorite player's PC is being partially cast aside when it comes to party decisions.Now this case, I really don't think it's a good solution for. If Bob finds Ted annoying, and doesn't think his plan is a good idea, then saying "Well, you have to follow it, he made the Diplomacy roll" is not at all going to improve the situation. At best, it leads to resentment. At worst, it leads to Bob trying to sabotage the plan and/or "accidentally" kill Ted's PC.

Also, even under ideal conditions, leadership is not always an area where you want to apply an accurate simulation. I mean sure, in a lot of scenarios, a group would have one leader, probably the guy with the amazing Charisma and command skills, and that guy would make the majority of the decisions. However, in a game, you don't generally want this. The charismatic noble only gets the same amount of say as everyone else, because the actual players having fun trumps the simulation being perfect.

[Mustard]

I think it could work with low frequency of usage. Suppose the party is coming up with a plan, and not making any progress because there are too many options. Everyone could roll Diplomacy to decide what to go with, not unlike flipping a coin to choose between left or right when exploring a dungeon.

Or maybe a new PC enters the picture, and the party doesn't trust them. A Diplomacy roll could at least be a start to trust them for now (out of need, say), as opposed to just trusting them inexplicably, or RPing it for an extended period of time, especially when there seems to be no progress, and it's no longer interesting to RP this particular thing, and you just want to move on and free the slaves, or kill the bandits, or whatever.

[Larpus]

This same discussion can also be mirrored to ask the reverse question:

If I can roleplay a diplomat and/or bully well, why do I need Doplomacy and Intimidate? I can save those precious skill points and just RP to hell and back to affect the NPCs.

The old problem of why an NPC will laugh at an enlarge minotaur Barbarian wielding a hammer bigger than his entire family but will be scared crapless of the pixie Bard who, despite being a boy, talks singing with a girly voice.

The mechanics weren't very well fleshed out, most probably because it is a rather "minor" part of the game (even though, as far as I can tell, it's used and discussed as much as straight battle).

But not only that, there's also a problem with the players themselves. I mean, seriously, who here never encountered a low Int Barbarian who came from the heart of the jungle, never having any contact with human civilization...only to have him act like a strategist 24/7, knows stats about all sorts of monsters (even though none of them even exist near where he lived) and suddenly can make very specific and intricate orders to the magic shop guy?

I'm not saying "lol, people suck at roleplaying", but rather, if even something that does have a mechanic of how it works ends up disrupted by meta, what to say of something that doesn't? Especially when it feels so unfair, after all, if I want to punch someone else in the group, they can always run away, ask for help from the other burly melee guy or something like that, but if he goes and casts a dominate on me and I fail my save...that's it, I can't do anything.

So if such a system is to be proposed, I personally feel that some sort of counter mechanic should exist otherwise you'll end with either a frustrated player who has to comply just because the Bard has maxed Diplomacy/Intimidate or an "out-of-character" response where the player should comply since the Bard rolled a natural 20, but acts as if he hadn't.

Oh, and just so it doesn't look like I'm saying that meta kills the game or anything even remotely close to that, in the Barbarian example, if he acts accordingly when purchasing gear, he'll end up crippled and useless, so it's simply not feasible (or even possible) to complete remove meta from the game.